Discussion in 'Politics 2.0' started by Moose, Oct 28, 2022.
Winner, winner, kiddie dinner?
Is that not for use in a local currency designed to keep money flow in that town ? Not anything to do with fears of global overlords ?
Are you living in the real world ? Numerous peer reviewed papers, articles in scientific journals (we're not talking New Scientist here) trials have evaluated the data against what would have happened had there been no vaccination in place. Just as when loons like religious nuts refuse to allow medical treatments/ interventions cause increases in viral diseases. It's amazing how these nuts who have not one iota of scientific training or ability to critically evaluate data without bias come up with this garbage time and time again. We really are living in a time where thanks to social media the dumb, thick and foolish are allowed to spout their nonsense unchecked. To suit their own agendas.
My point was that no data or research was referenced, asking readers to trust in the an opinion, not data.
Also, that response was a straw man cannard to detract from the actual subject being discussed. It addresses the possible health issues with the vaccine by saying about how many lives it saved. That is not what was being discussed.
But that aside, can you mention a few of the research articles you are referring to. It will be interesting to see if the data they provide is still being touted as robusltly as when first issued.
For sure, reviews of Pfizers early data on efficacy and risks have generated an unfavourable second glance in terms of historical data.
The vaccine does not stop you from getting COVID. It also causes long term issues similar to the virus. That has rammifications. It also appears that the vaccine may have an effect on younger people that is not really a risk if they catch COVID.
If you think these things can be dismissed with a straw man argument tjat fails to address such concerns, that is yout business.
But I would rather the government do the research, and find out the facts of the matter.
That is all that is being called for. But for some reason you think I am not living in the real world.
I think the same of you. Don't go running to the mods now mod. You started it.
Maybe he should try ordering kiddy portions?
Andrew Bridgen (aka ‘Johnny Hates Jabs) emptied Parliament last week with his anti-vaccine rant. The loons love him and are going to town.
Seeing this cartoon frequently on vaccine related discussions. Charming.
There are good (and mad) people people on both sides...
The loons love Colbert and have been going to town for years. Charming.
Just providing some context.
Respected ? The man's a dumb thick moron. Just reflects on Parliament and the electoral systems that such crackpot are in positions of 'authority'. The scumbag has not one iota of scientific knowledge like the other usual loons on social media.
Firstly, and with respect, we all appreciate the work that Mods do on this forum. But given that the the mods in the politics section have been very keen on keeping the inflammatory language down, could you please refrain from using it yourself. I share some of this guys concerns, so by association you are calling me a dumb thick moron (I personally have no problem with you thinking that). I consider people who make comments like yours, and who are so judgemental, as 'dumb thick morons' myself, but usually refrain from saying so, because the mods (you) have asked us ALL to show some respect. This is the second time you have used inflammatory language in your posts, and it is rather unfortunate.
That said, which bit of his speech is it you object to?
Genuine question. Do you have personal understanding of why he is a 'dumb thick moron' or is it an opinion you have received from other sources?
There is nothing in his speech that can even vaguely be described as unreasonable or that could not have been rebutted by a minister were its contents 'dumb thick and moronic', as you described. Instead, a proxy is sent to do the job and the debate is all but boycotted.
This was an oportunity for Government to come down hard on what he is saying with facts and figures, and to put it on record. Instead, they chose to ignore it. I think that is more worrying than a person, no matter how mislead, asking questions about serious concerns that are shared, like it or not, by many citizens of the United Kingdom. These MPs are supposed to represent them. Why has an elected Parliament chosen to give strength to conspiracy, by acting in a way that appears more like running scared, that casually dismissing lunacy?
Why are we vaccinating kids who are at more risk from the vaccine than from COVID?
Should we be concerned that the MHRA (the vaccine regulator) is 86% funded by private money?
Worst of all, should we be concerned that members of the JCVI (Parliament's Joint Committee on Vaccine Immunisation) have OVER A BILLION POUNDS IN INVESTMENTS IN BIG PHARMA?
That last one seems to suggest that the government's brains trust is potentially more of a big pharma lobby group than an independent body.
Those are what I would consider to be genuine intelligent questions. Why you and people like you think they are not worth the bother of asking, indeed dumb, thick and moronic, is your business. I just can't figure out why you think it is wrong for a member of parliament to even ask them.
He is asking questions for debate and investigation. That is his job. If he is misguided, we would fing out.
Corporations are far more powerful than Governments these days and have them in their back pockets.
Bridgen is a deluded idiot and moron. Like all the other countless conspiracy loons. Evidence is continually proffered and rejected because it runs contrary to these morons point of view. It beggars belief how dumb they are. How lacking in scientific knowledge they are. Most are right wing extremists too. The lunatic fringe.
Can I ask you again then.
What was it you found unreasonable in his speach?
And is your opinion of him based on your own conclusions of his words and deeds, or on what you have been toldabout him by others?
Quite reasonable to ask I think. Because I can see nothing wrong with his speech at all, the only possible controversial element being an immediate cessation of boosters. Otherwise the inquiries he is suggesting seem to be entirely natural. Particularly given that big pharma is part of the one percent some of you are digging into else where on the forum. This is why we are in a tiz. Attacking huge greedy corporations on one thread, and defending them on another.
I hope that you as a mod will go easy on posters when they use the type of language you do here. I imagine Skyla is rolling her eyes at the example you are setting. Moose tried to get someone banned for calling another poster a terd once, and now he's liking your defamitory posts. Just goes to show the hypocrissy of it all.
And yet we seem to have people who describe themselves as being on the left wing defending them. And not just on this forum.
Your post has been up for days, and not a single like or comment from the 'left'. More like awkward silence it seems. In the past, this would have been grist to the mill, but, now, the enemy of the left appears to be the common people who are too 'stupid' to fall for the BS and propaganda fed to them by advertisers, media, politicians and corporations. Who find themselves, literally, attacked as morons because they do not blindly accept the opinion of politicized hacks.
It's not conspiracy. It's business. And it appears to be championed by 'the left' for the benefit of corporations and corrupt politicians.
So again, we have a situation where a person is being demonised for opposing the official message. But not one person can describe what it was in Bridgen's speech that made them form such an opinion.
That is how sleep walking happens.
This is you doing your risible stolen election thing again. Crying it’s fishy if people don’t waste their time debunking every hare sent running by conspiraloons.
Bridgen isn’t a medical researcher. He’s an attention seeker, wilfully misrepresenting data, spurred on by internet cranks. Cranks who have claimed variously that the vaccine contained 5G chips, made people have three foot long blood clots made of weeds and put up stories of people allegedly disabled through the vaccine who it turns out acquired disabilities a decade ago.
The opposition to the vaccine is political, not based in science.
So what was in his speech that you think was unreasonable?
And how does me asking that question give you the right to call me an election denier?
People are so busy accusing me of being this that of the other. Funny how they always seem to forget to answer the questions I ask.
I know what a casual observer would call it.
If you are going to reply to my posts, try responding to their contents. Your petty squabbling, name calling and making up stuff isn't appreciated here.
Try a discussion for once.
This isnt a left or right thing. Its a 1% vs the 99% thing.
I know that. I was pointing out an unfortunate anomally. That some on the left now seem to think that defending corporations is their thing.
There is a rationale to dialectic argument. From time immemorial not to involve emotion but logic to get a balanced rational view. This conniving MP has no logic, no knowledge, no decency. He has a track record of being a liar even with his own family members but he is judged by the equally deluded to be a voice of moderation, intellect and reason.
That the biggest pharmaceutical companies are involved in manufacturing medicines whatever they be or medical technology is because it takes an enormous amount of capital, research, usually time and resources to develop new medical interventions. Some of the largest companies have had to merge in order to allow these new innovations to come about because they cannot do it on their own. However the implication that these corporations had a hand in creating new diseases or trying to sell new vaccines for their own benefit is laughable.
This continual bigpharma buffoonery from conspiracy loons is risible. For instance that these companies create diseases to sell new cures or they hide cures to keep their current drugs in fashion and so on. That medical researchers, practitioners and everyone else is hiding the truth from the public. While there have been the odd drugs scandal in the past there is constant trialling, scientific scrutiny in peer reviewed journals as to drug efficacy, protocols. Some of these loons seem to think eating raw spinach will help cure your cancer for instance. They prey on the scientific illiteracy of the masses with their own pseudo-scientific garbage.
Right. So what was it about his speech that you have an issue with?
Everything you say there is ad hominem (whether justified or not) and none of it addresses the speech that was being attacked (sorry, discussed) on this thread.
You are absolutely right about big Pharma being required. That, I would hope you would agree, does not exempt them from criminal or unethical behaviour, just as it doesn't exempt the government. So what is wrong with the investigations he has called for?
Would you make the same argument to defend Boris? Who was acting on advice from big Pharma. Of course you wouldn't. So why make it to defend the coprporate giants themselves?
It's OK if you are simply making a political point at the expense of your credibility. But making out you are in some way above moronic behaviour, that you can scowel down on it, is lacking a humility that your behaviour rather begs for.
I will dip my toe cautiously in this volcanic pool.
I cannot see anyone on here stating they have an issue with the speech.
The issue as I read it raised by Smudger was that John Mappin described him as "respected" and he clearly does not agree. I read Smudger's view as being his view on Bridgen in general rather than confined to one speech.
but what do I know?
But no one is obligated to refute every bit of horseshyte conspiracists come up with, whether that’s vaccine conspiracies, climate change denial or Trump’s stolen election nonsense.
The conspiracists have had answers 100x over. They choose to ignore them.
Folk can say what they like and other folk can ignore what they like.
The discussion was regarding the speech, which Moose posted on the thread saying about how it emptied the commons. But thank you for your input.
You don't have tp explain your opinion at all.
But when you don't, you leave others to decide for themselves that what you are saying has no thought behind it.
I mentioned three reasonable things from the speech and asked how on earth you thought they should not be addressed by parliament.
Your choice not to respond says far more than if you had. No one has tried to describe anything in his speech that was horse shyte. Instead they have expended great amounts of energy avoiding saying anything about it, and instead attacking him as a person.
Clearly, from the response/lack of response, it is not unreasonable to assume that you are merely repeating opinions that have been fed to you, because you appear to have no idea what you are commenting on. That can also be concluded by your misplaced comments about the speech.
Wouldn't it have been better if a minister had cut him down with facts and figures. That is what I would have preferred to see.
But no. Parliament did the same as people on this forum, citing a greater wisdom that requires no proof what so ever; tantamount to blind faith.
The discussion may indeed be regarding the speech but the quote from Smudger you used was very specific in objecting to Bridgen being called respected - and Smudger clearly regards Bridgen in terms I need not repeat on a wider stage. I doubt Smudger restricts his views on Bridgen to one speech but that would be for him to clarify if he chose to. You and I can only speculate.
I think Smudger can speak for himself. My question is relevent in the context of this forum and the discussion being had. Please don't pick a fight over, literally, nothing.
I like what Richard Dawkins used to say to the various theologians and religious figures who used to ask challenge him, in person, to attend a face-to-face debate with them: "It'll look good on your CV but not so much on mine..."
Not picking a fight - just voicing an opinion as that is what this site is for. Glad you agree that it is up to Smudger to speak for himself. Glad I was able to help. I will sign off from this now as you are not a person I want to engage with. ( I will await your barbed reply and smile to myself silently)
How about expressing an opinion on the subject under discission then? Rather than telling me what I should or should not be asking.
Perhaps you could ask yourself what the point of your posts was? Or why you had to white knight for Smudger. There really was no need for it.
Oh go on then - you ask so nicely you have tempted me in.
My opinion is that Bridgen should not be "extremely respected" as he resembles a dumb thick moron.
I did not once tell you what to think or ask just what I thought Smudger was referring to.
My point was to add to this wonderful thread's diccussion
and I did not white knight for anyone but expressed my genuine thought as to what he meant as it seemed to have confused you. Pardon me for caring.
There is a lot of need for us all to express opinions on this board.
Have I met your requests in full?
Do you really expect anyone that has read your posts on this to believe that?
I don’t think that even you believe it. Are you going to PM me with a sob story now, to make me feel guilty?
I know your MO. You are now on ignore.
I happened to watch one of these programmes where all human achievement in the not so distant past but distant in terms of our lifespan is ascribed to aliens who landed through a Stargate to teach us everything.
This particular bozo without any factual evidence was postulating how odd it seemed to him that many cultures of the past all had half animal-human deities including a particular type of birdman as in Mezoamerica, the Hindu pantheon (Garuda) and of course Horus. That he was amazed that over a large area of Mesoamerica that disparate groups all held similar cultural references and values and that could only be ascribed to rapid transportation namely by aliens in the form of aerial vehicles.
That looking at ancient reliefs on these Mesoamerican pyramids the figures depicted were wearing spacesuits and carrying technology sticks. Not that these figures could be wearing native dress or weapons, primitive lamellar armour for instance. Or that animism and animal worship right from our sapiens and neanderthal ancestors has been a widespread phenomenon across the globe. Or indeed that many ancient empires and states quickly disseminated cultural values via force or simply by rapid transport over several years (so that to some numpty looking later without reference might ascribe it to a singular event in time). And would have been quite feasible given the extensive road networks in Mesoamerica at the time.
No experimentation, no rational thought, no evidence just these are my thoughts and they must be true.
You're not doubting the 'work' of the great 'thinker' Erich von Däniken are you? Seriously, we were chatting at work the other day about how/why we ended up as scientists. There were a lot of the usual/expected comments "...always found it interesting...", "...came from a religious family...", "...liked Mr Spock in Star Trek..." when I said I had, at 8 years old, watched a 'Horizon'/'World About Us' documentary on von Däniken and found his tome in Summerswood Primary School library that I was hooked brought howls of mocking laughter from my colleagues. The bastards.